## Facts

- Octavio Thomas, an amateur soccer player, participated in a league match sponsored and organized by soccer governing entities, including the United States Soccer Federation, a league, and a state association.
- During a June 18, 1992 match, after the opposing team kicked the ball out of bounds, Thomas picked up the ball to take a throw-in.
- An unidentified opposing player suddenly punched Thomas twice in the face.
- Thomas struck back; then 20 to 30 spectators allegedly ran onto the field, restrained him, and the initial assailant bit off Thomas’s ear.
- Thomas sued the soccer organizations for negligence, alleging failure to provide a properly trained referee and failure to maintain a safe playing environment.
- The record showed no prior animosity between the teams and no prior warning signs indicating a risk of violence.
- After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion, and defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ alleged failures in officiating and safety measures could be a proximate cause of Thomas’s injuries when the injuries resulted from a sudden, intentional assault by a player and spectators.
2. Whether the intervening criminal conduct was unforeseeable as a matter of law, constituting a superseding cause warranting summary judgment for defendants.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order denying summary judgment.
- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held that, even assuming negligence, defendants’ conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the injury because the sudden assault was an unforeseeable intervening criminal act.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial cause of the events producing the injury.
- Proximate cause limits liability to consequences that are normal or reasonably foreseeable results of the risk created by the defendant’s conduct.
- An intentional or criminal act by a third party can sever causation unless the act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when, after discovery, the defendant establishes lack of proximate cause and the plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue on foreseeability and causal connection.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the abrupt, unexpected assault by a player and spectators—absent prior hostility or warning signs—was an extraordinary intervening criminal act that broke the chain of causation, so alleged deficiencies in refereeing or safety arrangements could not support negligence liability.


Thomas v. United States Soccer Fed’n, Inc., 236 A.D.2d 600, 653 N.Y.S.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1997)